From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from second.openwall.net (second.openwall.net [193.110.157.125]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A60D22EFD4 for ; Mon, 21 Oct 2024 19:16:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 11951 invoked by uid 550); 21 Oct 2024 17:16:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-ID: Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com x-ms-reactions: disallow Received: (qmail 11916 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2024 17:16:09 -0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fifth.space; s=20190812; t=1729530960; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=ct5Gko5CA8NOEB3YYd6ZcJ1XkYDnB2knXkTuGSqFcAI=; b=mFTdYQTS3K/tcCYTx7LTfmhVPcFTt27+jHTZ+Yc6fRfQPQlENMn8CpKiCbBBjzJ0EaS497 SSdmJnHscKWHtnx4G+SsRgcVQR+ApYTFABLW00ENk6rZRXEeFeNyvM1cpRRRaZH0ns5MVU npR5knSbg4U7gs1q2sSYBUKmUB5+vedi+84XhVOeMa87P2cHko0/ZSInUGdU5ufTbVi+vf EdBgIFDXhR/cJMujKsdna4SC+S5vX23kWw2Lacfx790k12MZIe7YIBG5niMBymjqQadHNa v3qIZ9ql/Rt7hTa0sQmow947mNTHUdrO1YnTJYrxm0tq+9sTsrtPIdBclnEiiA== Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2024 19:15:57 +0200 From: Quentin Rameau To: Rich Felker Cc: musl@lists.openwall.com Message-ID: <20241021191557.494ed725.quinq@fifth.space> In-Reply-To: <20241019234045.GQ10433@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20241019234045.GQ10433@brightrain.aerifal.cx> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [musl] Proposed "AI" policies Hi, > Anything I'm missing or that seems like it should be changed? > musl. These do not have clear authorship, are derived from models > that are clearly derived from a plethora of copyrighted works > without license or attribution, and thereby cannot be licensed by > the submitter. Being that most patch contributions to musl are Maybe that part above could be reworded a bit, although I believe what you say is true, the problem is just that those are completely opaque regarding training sources, and so cannot be proven of good faith at all, enven if in practice it was actually trained from truly righteous material. > 2. Please DO NOT submit "AI generated" or otherwise automated bug > reports without disclosing the provenance (or lack thereof). This > wastes everybody's time. If you are using tooling to identify > potential bugs, please either confirm before reporting that you > have actually found a bug (not just that the tool said it's a bug), > or clearly state in the report that it's unconfirmed, which tools > you used, and why you think the alleged bug may be legitimate -- or > if you don't know you're just asking whether it might be. Maybe the bug reporting part should be emphasized on its own, disregarding the source of it, I think that's valable for computers and humans altogether. Then the AI part could be an addition to it, instead of the inverse.